Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:02:44 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Randy said:
>
> "If such opening of the channels were irreversible, then the sodium
> channels
> would remain open, and be cumulative, as you suggested when you started
> this discussion, citing Haber's Law. Now you appear to be taking the
> reverse argument."
>
Christina said
>
> Here is a "teachable moment". The neuron is basically a battery. If you
> aggressively discharge your battery, it wears out and is dead. Same with
> neurons. Batteries recharge if energy is applied. Same with neurons.
> They have sodium-potassium pumps which work to recharge (re-establish the
> negative resting potential) of the neuron. The blocked AChR channels can
> be open and leak, and the Na-K pumps oppose the leak by moving the ions
> back out of the cytosol. They are very efficient at this and under normal
> conditions can re-establish the resting potential in fractions of a second.
>
It sounds like it is reversible, based on your explanation, which was
Randy's original issue. So I am even more confused.
The argument you use, smoking, is not like the neonics since smoking is a
continuous injection of nicotine over many years while the neonics are only
at time of bloom over a short period. Plus, they are not at the levels that
a smoker gets, so the argument is not valid.
So, is the effect reversible or not?
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|